RAND’s analysis shows that a Taiwan Straits air war in 2020 exposes alarming concerns about the limits of US reliance on stealth, forward basing and beyond visual range combat. (Spoiler alert: the Chinese win.):

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/download-infamous-rand-air-pow.html

That scenario operates under a lot of assumptions though. If the variables are more favorable, then the results might not quite be the same.

They will only introduce AESA when it is better than there PESA systems just likey they will replace soyuz shuttle.

Or perhaps when they can produce smaller modules, to get a meaningful amount on the array, and at an economical price. Their AESA technology is Gen 1 and we’re already on Gen 3+.

Why should they release operational details of new stuff?. Wait untill 2020when they will release data just like they release data 1993 test in 2005 publication.

How long has the Russian economy enjoyed the influx of hard currency? It’s not until somewhat recently that they’ve had much money to buy/develop new stuff, and deploy it. Foreign sales have kept MIG/Sukhoi open, so 1990s/early 2000s info isn’t as out of date as you’d like for us to believe.
The RuAF still has no operational aircraft with AESA, or very long range AAMs, so keep speculating based upon test launches all you want.

u have to maintain that so called poor economic & monetary policy to maintain growth & create jobs. otherwise it is complete collapsed. for example
Russians can still create economic growth (among the fastest) with 12% interest rate and 60% stock market decline but US cannot go beyond 5% interest rate. This is the result of previous cold war.
So there is no choice without massive printing of dollars on continous basis & keep interest rate low.

I see your understanding of economics is right up there with with aerodynamics, physics, engineering, etc…

The problem is that banks gave out loans to people that they shouldn’t have, and then other banks/investors bought loans on the principle that they were safe. In otherwords people were operating on bad info and speculation, much like some of the claims that are made here. Free markets and Capitalism have nothing to do with people making boneheaded decisions. Even China has seen the advantages of free markets vs. a command economy.

Well actually what happened was an example of excessive financial market deregulation (as per classical capitalism), Central Bank incompetence & greed.

As for your point on the F-22- I couldn’t agree more, it’s just that ‘numbers guy’ needs convincing that the less you produce, the more unit costs will rise (as per F-22, B-2 etc.).

Even in capitalism, there needs to be rules though(just not a lot of them).:D

Oh yeah, in a week where classical capitalist models were given a damn good kickin’, here has emerged the neo-neo-model where “volume production savings” trump Economies of Scale.

I guess by your model the next batch of F-22s will come in @$100K apiece (average, not marginal)- Simple.

What has happened in the last week IS NOT an example of classic capitalist models. It is an example of very poor economic and monetary policy, based on inaccurate data, combined with some corruption for good measure.

If large buys of additional F-22s were made, it wouldn’t be unrealistic to see $100-110M/airframe pricing.

Putin has claimed Russia will get through without any detrimental effects to the country’s economy.

Nice to see you post your anti-Russian crap as 2nd comment though. :rolleyes:

Well if Putin said that, it’s good enough for me.:rolleyes:

From some quick calculations – with a few lazy rounding errors – The optimal range that R-33 would have travelled assuming a head on engagement was 192ish kilometers – assuming the R-33 had a lofted trajectory with no loss in horizontal velocity – traveling at Mach 3.5 between 11 and 20 km up. That was making hugely favourable assumptions in favour of the missile – that won’t be the case in reality. In reality the missile probably didn’t travel a distance of over 160 km under its own power.

And against a cooperative target in a head on attack.